Slashdot Mirror
Doing Open-Source Development, Anonymously?
An anonymous reader asks: "I have some free time, and I've recently started looking into some open-source projects that I'd like to start working on. (I'm a great fan of open-source. A package that I wrote four years ago, and which shall remain un-named, is probably running on you Linux system). But I have a problem: I strongly suspect that my after-hours work might be 'frowned upon' by my employer, and although I have no contractual commitment to abstain from such work, and I will not use office-computers or anything, I realize that in these times it might get me into trouble. So I figured I'll use an assumed identity. However, in order to release copyleft software, you have to first claim copyright to it, and this is not likely to legaly hold for an assumed identity. I don't want to release to the public-domain either. So what can I do?"
It would not hurt to ask. If that does not work, maybe you could find a friend and give them the copyright to the program.
Ever heard of Mark Twain, aka Samuel Clements? Magically, he managed to keep a copyright on his shit. Or how about Lewis Carroll, aka. Rev. Charles Lutwidge Dodgson?
If you cared so much about fucking copyright, you'd do it with your real name. You want all the credit without a shred of responsibility. Bullshit. Man the fuck up. If it's not against whatever assraping contract you signed, you've got nothing stopping you except a weak constitution.
but as the fortune says
Why be a man when you can be a success? -- Bertolt Brecht
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Before reading your post I though it was a case of shared source poisoned developer.
However, the posibility of that SS (or similar) is the main thing preventing you from being anonymous.
And, is your boss THAT intransigent ? He is benefiting somehow of your opensource work too, doesn't.
We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
Note that they will ask if your employer can have any copyright (or other) claim on your program and if that is the case you will still have to ask them for permission (and the FSF will ask for a signed confirmation that what you do is OK).
Just email them at assing@gnu.org.
You could incorporate and then hold copyleft in the company name. You'd have to use your real name to form the corp, but it would provide one step of shielding for you. Incorporating on your own is trivial and inexpensive (I did it). Get the appropriate book for your state, and you might also look at the Corporate Publishing web site.
If you absolutely want to do this behind your employers back, then you could release it as public domain (why won't you consider that?). Or you could assign copyright to a friend, who will keep you anonymous in return. If you don't have any friends, assign copyright to the FSF, I'm sure they would agree to try to keep you anonymous. That's about it.
hehe.
It would not hurt to ask. If that does not work, maybe you could find a friend [fsf.org] and give them the copyright to the program.
The flaws here have already been pointed out. Why not just have a buddy of yours copyright it for you, and then you can work on it all you want to. If you really want it to be anonymous use a friend that would never have anything to do with coding.
You've just got to care more about the project than the credit. Oops, whole other issue. . .
THen, put the software in his name, give him 1% of the profits.
Or, start a corporation, then publish it all in the corporations identity.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
Yep, this problem is real. One of Perl gurus had to quit open source community because of restrictions imposed upon him by his employer. This story was covered by Slashdot in the past.
--
Ilya Martynov (http://martynov.org/)
If you need help with how to do this succesfully, talk to "Carlo Wood". This person, whoever he/she is, has contributed to GCC, various GNU utilities, and lots of other projects. He also shows up on mailing lists pretty often. Anyway, basically he signs everything with PGP; if at some point he has to reveal his true identity, he can show that he knows the private key to prove that he is Carlo Wood.
If you honestly believe your employer is a threat to your cause you cannot work on other, on going Open Source projects. You would contaminate the project and would potentially expose it to legal liability.
I doubt too many projects would survive such an effect. (It could be illegal to distribute the source code, etc...).
If you really want to do some programming outside of work stick to your own stuff. Open source it if you wish and realize that the project could be killed by/for legal reasons.
Just use a handle for the work, and always attach to it something that only YOU can decode (i.e., it's been gPGP'ed), so that if you ever want to prove you're the author, you can do so.
Post it to a geocities home page from a public terminal using a Yahoo login name you created from a public terminal. This way, its completely anonymous and there's no way it can be traced to you.
Copyrights still apply if the author is anonymous. Look at the many publishers in ages ago who published under a pseudoname. You may not be able to enforce you're copyleft if you want to remain anonymous, however.
But, I don't see how that matters. Lets say that you GPL a program which functions as a 3D rendering engine, but is just the core -- not the actual UI. Then some greedy company comes along and builds a user-friendly program around you're GPL'ed program, but releases it under a EULA. That EULA is automatically void, and anyone who gets that program can reverse engineer it to get the source, and may be on legal standing to demand that the company give them the source.
Alternatively, you can submit it anonymously to the FSF, then they'll enforce it for you.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
You don't have to 'claim' the copyright to have it. Just release it anonymously and make sure you have some kind of proof that you are the creator.
Here in Sweden, one would do that by mailing a sealed envelope with the complete work to oneself.
Putting in a copyright notice with a pseudonym might make it easier for people modifying the source to put in appropriate credits.
Why are people so afraid of registering copyright? This is a solved problem.
If you want your copyright claim to be strong enough that it would actually hold up in court, you really want to register it anyway, and using a pseudonym or anonymous authorship is allowed, at least in USAia (and the treaties should cover elsewhere).
You can get someone else (who you trust, obviously) to sign the paperwork as your authorized agent, no need to divulge who you are, and no need to assign.
If you want to make your mark you have to work for it.
If sucking corporate dick gets in the way of your dreams, too bad, you seem to like the taste, stop whining.
"If you're not part of the solution you're part of the precipitate", no, wait! That was something else.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
That was because his contract with his employer had a "all your copyright are belong to us" clause in it, so he'd been open-sourcing stuff he didn't actually hold the copyright on.
If this anonymous poster's contract isn't like that (at my last job anything I wrote in my own time that was related to my job ended up under my employer's copyright, which isn't as bad) then his/her employer can't claim ownership of the code, or of the employee's free time.
To the article poster: read your contract, carefully.
RMS, I have been faithful, I use your ``emacs'' package every day!
Hmm.. Somebody contributes to a significant number of GNU projects yet remains anonymous (and therefore unaccountable.)
Microsoft mole?
The Web is like Usenet, but
the elephants are untrained.
to have your paranoia formally diagnosed.
Right, the country just south of Canadia.
(I'm a great fan of open-source. A package that I wrote four years ago, and which shall remain un-named, is probably running on you Linux system)
Hey, you must have been the guy that wrote Mozilla's HTML-form submission spell checker. Thanks! It werks wonderfuly!
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
If you're unable to claim copyright because you have to remain anonymous, then you're also in no position to enforce copyright. I wouldn't worry too much about claiming copyright--release it under the gpl and trust public image to keep companies in line. PR value has a lot more enforcement potential than the courts anyway--few OS projects have the resources to prosecute a case in court against a real company, and the outcome is uncertain even if they did.
IANL, but...
If you do your OSS work:
- in your own time
- using your own equipment
- outside the scope of your current employment
it's yours, even if you signed a contract saying that everything you publish while in this company's employ is theirs.You should get this advice directly from a good IP lawyer with experience in this area (I give the google cached version because they're working on their server this weekend). You might find that he also tells you that you need not consult your present employer because the contract they made you sign is in breach of this basic legal principle of IP law. He will probably tell you that you are the equitable owner anything you do in your own time, on your own equipment, and outside the scope of your current position with that employer.
There is, of course, ample precedent for entities, including individuals publishing under pseudonyms, retaining copyright of their work.
Your main order of business (besides getting the half hour of preventative legal advice that you can pry get on a free initial consultation), is to, through your own internal CVS logs for example, continue to document the fact that the OSS work you are doing is in fact being conducted on your own equipment and in your own time.
Another measure you can take is to timestamp, sign and encrypt and periodically mail the CVS logs (heck why not a snapshot of the whole repository) off to a trusted third party, with instructions to store, and not to open the files unless it becomes necessary. This is the digital equivalent of sending yourself a registered letter with your copyrighted documents in it, and then not opening it -- unless you need to do so in front of the judge. Which you probably won't have to, but it's a heck of a good thing to have. If someone informs you they're going to challenge your copyright, your counsel will tell their counsel that you've taken these preventative measures, and poof! the problem will, in all likelihood, magically go away.
Somebody mentionned Carlo Wood. I have another "name" to look up to: Oliver Xymoron, on the LKML.
Don't be an idiot.
Even aside from the paranoia there, MS is not going to have people doing things that they could be legally accountable for.
May we never see th
The literary history is full of pseudonyms, assumed identities, and secret double lifes. These must provide legal precedent on how to publish without tarnishing your good name, and yet be able to claim authorship once your name so wel established that it doesn't matter, or so badly tarnished anyway that it doesn't matter. Consult a good lawyer, or if you can not afford one, someone who knows the history of literature...
In Murphy We Turst
Book authors have been useing "pen names" for years without fear of loseing their copyright. Useing a pseudonym for source code copyright should not be any different.
Have you ever said 'Canadia' in front of a Canadian? They typically lose control... lots of fun. Score: -1, Offtopic)
The poster is probably correct that the FSF is going to be a little cautious about accepting the assignment. Given the fact that they don't know you, they have to be. So, find someone who *does* know you, who trusts that you actually own the work you're claiming to own -- and who you trust to keep your work Free -- and assign the copyright to them. Of course, by doing that you don't get the benefit of the FSF's resources in defending the assigned copyright.
I suppose it's even possible that you could make some sort of legal agreement with the assignee that required them to keep the code Free (as in not relicensing it, I don't would be willing to agree to defend it) as a condition of the assignment. The assignment agreement could be kept between you and the assignee, since the publication of the code would be with their name listed as the copyright holder.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Having anonymous releases is fine, not letting your employer know that you are a more valuable coder than they can tell is your own fault. But deciding to break the agreement you signed is not something you can do because you feel like it.
You *should* speak with a lawyer and have your contract revised if the contract is in voilation with current laws. Asking your boss to revise their illegal/voided contract is more noble than considering yourself too righteous to acknowledge it. If your lawyer fires you because he though the contract had more value than it legally did, then you could be riding on free paychecks and a new wardrobe.
But please to not represent the OSS community as moles in companies.
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
Somebody contributes to a significant number of GNU projects yet remains anonymous (and therefore unaccountable.)
Unaccountable how, exactly?
Get it?
The Web is like Usenet, but
the elephants are untrained.
Well, I was joking, but if you really want to know, read The Cathedral and the Bazaar. The only currency in the Open Source market is recognition and peer review. They provide the only pressure (but it is often sufficient) for people to produce secure, bug-free, usable software.
The Web is like Usenet, but
the elephants are untrained.
Pay a lawyer to register the copyright under a pseudonym. The lawyer cannot be forced to disclose your identity as to do so would violate attorney-client privilege. Case closed, trivial problem solved.
I do a lot of programming/video/computer and other technical work, including writing sci-fi. I also do things that are extremely unpopular with techie people -- I work as a a professional psychic/tarot reader (and am rather well respected in the field). Some people in tech fields can be quite nasty in their objections to anything connected with religious or spiritual activities (almost as if anyone who understands logic should never consider the possible existance of anything science hasn't already proven).
I do all my tech work and writing under one name and I do all my psychic work and metaphysical writing under another name. According to the lawyer who instructed me, since I registered the name legally as an assumed name (in my city/place of business), I can use this name legally as if it were mine own. So far I've never had any trouble with it -- including accepting and cashing checks from clients. I do think I did state it as an assumed name on the copyright forms I sent in to the Library of Congress, but I could of just as easily registered the copyright as a work done by my corporation.
If you use a legally assumed name, you would have to register it, but it will be protected by what lawyers call legal obscurity. In other words, your boss has to go down to the town/city hall, and physically look up the record to see your name. For this to happen, he'd have to actually suspect you are doing something he doesn't want, and he'd have to know what name he suspects you are using. In other words, it's not likely he'll realize ever go through the effort to find a legally assumed name.
If you do need to register the copyright with the Library of Congress, and have to register under your real name, how is your employer going to find out who's name is on the copyright form unless he looks it up? Again, you're most likely safe because of practical obscurity.
(As a matter of fact, is the software you're working on something your employer is ever likely to come across and see your name on the copyright info?)
The only currency in the Open Source market is recognition and peer review.
I agree. But his 'name' is just as valid for peer review purposes as anyone elses. In fact more than most, since he uses PGP signatures to bind his work to that name. The fact that the name he uses isn't the same as the name he uses in the real world doesn't affect the peer review process.
I would add that there are one or two reasonably well known open source developers who I strong suspect are psuedonyms, but since I'm not totally sure I don't want to name names.
Take a simple GPL'ed application (Hello World, or true). Remove everything that isn't needed and work from there. Document what it was based on. The result is a modified GPLed executeable that must be released under the GPL. So must anything based on that, unless the creator of true or Hello World changes it's licence.
I do all my tech work and writing under one name and I do all my psychic work and metaphysical writing under another name. According to the lawyer who instructed me, since I registered the name legally as an assumed name (in my city/place of business), I can use this name legally as if it were mine own. So far I've never had any trouble with it -- including accepting and cashing checks from clients.
;)
Why do you need an attorney? As a psychic, I would think you'd know if you would ever have any trouble with it.
-Waldo Jaquith